Anyone who advertises a gun online will have to do a background check. If someone puts the gun in the local Ad Bulletin or classified section of the newspaper, no background check is required. If that classified section is posted online, then a background check is required. How many people will unknowningly violate that law?

We have “universal” background checks in California, so I’ll tell you what it actually does. I traded my 9mm 1911 for a 9mm Glock. Instead of meeting and trading guns, we had to meet at a gun dealer during business hours, which was inconvenient. We each paid $35 for the background check fee (which is being abused in CA, that’s another story). Ten days later, we both had to drive back to the gun shop to pick up our guns. It may not sound so bad, but remember that not every town has a friendly neighborhood gun shop. People living in San Francisco have to drive an hour down out of town to find a gun dealer. We wasted $70, 2 hours, and a lot of hassle just so we could both leave with a different handgun.

Rural people have the same problem. Public advertisements are the only effective option to sell a gun in areas with low population density. Anyone who advertises their gun must then drive in to town to sell/trade. Again, it’s a real pain in the ass for country folk.

*************************************************

Or course, you know that there will be a fee for doing a private background check. (It’s government, there’s always a fee). The background check fee in California (Dealer’s Record of Sale) is too high, and it created a $24 million surplus. Instead of spending that money to administer or improve the background check system (which has major problems), the CA legislature recently stole that money to fund the gun-confiscation teams. To prevent hidden taxes, CA law explicitly prohibits over charging for fees. Fees may only be used for the purpose for which they were collected. The legislature is clearly violating state law, but that doesn’t stop them.

First, the prohibition on federal gun registration only applies to the DOJ & sub-agencies (like ATF). Any other federal agency is NOT prohibited. The DOJ is only prohibited from creating a registry using records from *current* gun dealer license holders. The DOJ could still compile a registry using records from out-of-business gun shops. Most gun shops are small businesses that eventually go away when the owner retires or dies. The registry would be incomplete, but it would be enough to find the huge majority of gun owners, especially when records from private sales are added to the dealer’s records. Further, the penalty for breaking the law is criminal prosecution … by the DOJ! Yeah, right, the DOJ will prosecute themselves. I’ll stop here.

Second, the protection for interstate travelers is negated by any state law that is a felony … like possessing an unregistered handgun in Massachusetts. Hence, travelers are not protected from arrest in the states where they need it the most, and any other state can invalidate the traveler protections by mimicking the laws in Mass. Travelers actually have more protection under FOPA 1986 than under the “enhanced” protection to Toomey-Manchin.

As a note, I think NRA is going to drop Manchin’s “A rating” dramatically. I think they should create a system for revoking memberships from people who use the membership to work against the NRA.

Second, that NRA quote he reads at the beginning was probably written before we had the full text of Manchin-Toomey. We didn’t get the text until shortly before it was voted on. I read jokes comparing it to ObamaCare “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy” (Yes, Pelosi actually did say that). For a long time, the only thing anyone knew about Manchin-Toomey was what Manchin and Toomey claimed it would do.

Third, I am SO SICK of that misleading “90%” statistic.

Fourth, that was some nice fear-mongering with Al Quaeda. I prefer dangerous freedom to safe tyranny. Additionally, the quote that Manchin reads claims that “you can go down to a gun show at the local convention center, and come away with a fully-automatic assault rifle”. That quote is WRONG, and by using it, Manchin is also wrong. Full-auto guns are more regulated than silencers. The only place to buy one no-questions-asked is on the black market, they same way you can buy cocaine with no-questions-asked on the black market. Manchin is using lies & fear-mongering to push his agenda.

Fifth, Manchin is lying again. Background checks do NOT stop American citizens with terrorist connections from buying guns. People on the terrorist watchlist can still buy guns legally. That’s another subject for another time.

Sixth, quoting an editorial in the Washington Times? Media bias isn’t just influencing politicians, now it’s being quoted as a reliable source?

Seventh, he mentions online auctions website (I use GunBroker). Again, he’s glossing over the fact that interstate guns sales still go through a licensed dealer and have a background check. Using online auctions to find local guns represents a very tiny percentage of the internet auction business. When was the last time you bought something off of eBay that was local and drove to meet the seller face-to-face? It happens, but it’s incredibly rare.

Eighth, I am so sick of gun control being called “common sense”. It’s a nasty, underhanded way of defaming anyone who disagrees.

Ninth, he admits that the bill won’t stop mass shootings, yet all of this is riding on the emotional wave of a mass shooting. Mass shootings are the only reason Congress is having this “discussion” right now. (Every mass shooter that I can think of has obtained his guns illegally through theft or has passed a background check.)

10 – Now he’s talking about a commission to study gun violence. He’s portraying it like it will be a true common sense group that will look at things fairly. He specifically mentions that we should avoid banning rifles just because they look different (“assault” rifles, aka modern sporting rifles). Does anyone really trust the government to consult with genuine experts on an issue? Or do we expect them to follow their political dogma and use the commission to publish more misleading, biased studies that will be used to push more gun control? Obama and his ilk talked about starting a national “conversation” about gun violence. The result? The government has pursued gun control, ignored gun owners, and ignored any other possible solution – all while telling us that we’re unreasonable if we don’t support these new laws. Obama talked about how we should be ashamed after the lastest push for gun control failed. If the commission is made up of anti-gun people (it will be), then the result will be the same as always.

11 – Now he’s talking about how elementary school administrators can identify “a child that has problems”. (“They have no insurance” Wasn’t ObamaCare supposed to fix all of that?) So what is Manchin proposing? It seems he’s implying that we take away a kid’s Constitutional rights forever before adulthood and without the person ever committing a serious crime. Whatever happened to due process? Oh, so he’s talking about mental health care for youth? Why? I thought this bill was about background checks, not healthcare. He’s changing the subject to topics not covered by his bill.

12 – Bullet proof glass in schools is probably a good idea. THIS is the type of thing that would actually save lives without hurting anybody’s rights. But again, that’s completely unrelated to this bill. Manchin-Toomey doesn’t give bullet-proof glass to schools. Why is he talking about it here?

13 – I am so sick of the “if it saves just one life” line of bullshit. I have witten *pages* about this. It’s a false justification. They don’t actually mean that! If they were serious about that, we could save far more children by banning swimming pools than by restricting guns. I mean, at least 1 person dies every year while playing sports. Are we going to ban those, too? We don’t restrict those things because society has already accepted those deaths, and because society believes that the benefits of a swimming pool outweigh the risks. Attacking our gun rights proves that these politicians are willfully ignorant of the benefits of gun ownership. They only see the bad things about guns, while they ignore or discredit the good things.

*************************************************

Fourty-four thousand (44,000) people failed background checks last year. Less than 20 were arrested and prosecuted. The government is not even enforcing the background check system we already have. Criminals are being allowed to walk free after trying to buy guns. After being denied, what are they going to do? They still want a gun, and they’re still free to walk the streets. They will steal one, buy one on the black market, or get a family member to make a straw purchase.

What good is a system that fails to achieve its goal? It’s illegal for teenagers to drink alcohol. Does it stop teen drinking? Requiring ID to buy alcohol does make it a little harder for them, but does it stop them? No, any teen that wants booze can still get it.

Background checks don’t stop criminals from getting guns, they just stop criminals from getting a gun *today*. It just means they have to work a tiny bit harder tomorrow. The only thing that will truly stop criminals from getting guns is locking the criminals in a “gun free zone” (prison). If we’re serious about stopping criminals from buying guns, then we need to ARREST and PROSECUTE criminals who get caught trying to buy a gun illegally. Anything less is just empty threats and powerless bureaucracy.

*************************************************

What do *I* think we should do for background checks? I think we should create an instant-check system that private people can use without going to a gun dealer, and that does not create a permanent record. It should be easy to access on the internet, smartphone, or phone call. We should create a convenient system that gun-sellers WANT to use. And we should reward people for using it.

Right now, I have to be careful when I sell a gun to another person. If that person is a felon, I go to prison. I have no way to protect myself from accidentally selling a gun to the wrong person. A free online instant background check system would help me protect myself if I sell a gun. That is already enough of a reward to encourage people to use it if the system is easy & convenient.

We could also give people extra legal protection. Anyone that does a background check while selling a gun should be protected from any prosecution or lawsuit from any possible future victims. This is the same protection that is given to gun manufacturers.

This system would make it a little harder for bad people to buy guns privately, but does not have any disadvantages.

*************************************************

I’m becoming more suspicious of expanded background checks, the same way most gun owners are suspicious of registration. Even if passed with good intentions, it may be abused later. For example, the definitions of ‘mentally unfit’ are expanding in some states. In CA & NY, seeing a psych doctor for any reason risks being classified as unfit. It has already happened to non-violent people. These people were not adjudicated as mentally incompetent by a court. They are not a threat to themselves or others. They simply saw a psychiatrist. Look at Lynette Philips in CA, and worse, think about what it meant to her husband David. There was a similar case in NY. Over 150,000 veterans recently had their 2nd Amendment rights summarily revoked due to the possibility of PTSD. The ‘Progressives’ like to destigmatize mental health issues, yet these events will definitely make people think twice before seeing a psychologist. The ‘Progressives’ also love legalizing marijuana. What they haven’t told anyone is that if medical records are added to NICS, then all of those medical-marijuana patients will lose their guns rights (technically already lost, but unenforcible) and will have their guns confiscated using CA’s registration. Further, if background checks are universal, then anyone whose gun rights are unjustly taken will have no recourse.

It seems so simple. Step 1: universal background checks and expanded list of prohibited people (seems very “common sense”). Step 2: keep expanding that list of prohibited people until very few qualify to own guns. Each time they expand the list, it will all seem very reasonable. Step 3: Marginalize and stigmatize the few remaining gun owners until owning a gun is as socially accepted as smoking cigarettes has become today. Instead of banning guns, it’s a slow, creeping way to ban gun owners.

*************************************************

If found this article on FaceBook. Unfortunately, the writer only posts his articles on FB, so I’m copy-pasting it here. Every one of these things IS happening. It’s possible that they’re unrelated, each one independent of the others, yet the end result is the same. It doesn’t matter if it’s a conspiracy or a coincidence, it is still happening.

Patriots Defending America

Survival. The fight or flight instinct. It is the primal drive that is at the core of every person.

There are those who instinctively respond to confrontational/dangerous situations by fighting. There are those who instinctively flee.

The majority of people fall somewhere in between. Pending circumstances they may at times fight and they may at times flee. This majority can be taught over time to instinctively respond in either way.

You might wonder how this relates to Gun Control and America’s Freedom. Be patient and the pieces will begin to fall together.

Now imagine if a group of people in positions of authority within our government were to decide that the way our country is being run is not in the best interest of the people or themselves. Imagine that they feel that they know what is best for us, but what is best for us is to throw aside the barbaric guidance of an outdated Constitution. They will tell us what to buy., what to eat, what to say, how to act, and in turn they believe that our country will be a better place and of course they will personally benefit in many ways.

How would they implement such a drastic change?

In a country as strong and large as the United States, the only hope of achieving such a goal would be from a systematic and psychological approach.

Fight or Flight: The key to Change.

To establish such a radical change to the foundation of the country, those wishing the change must first recognize who will fight to oppose their efforts, who will naturally submit, and who can be taught to submit.

When presented with a confrontational/dangerous situation, fighters look for the nearest weapon, those who flee look for the nearest escape route, and those in between may do either.

Those who are instinctively fighters tend to have weapons. Those in between may have weapons. Those who flee tend to fear weapons.

There is no means for them to change the primal drive of fighters. They will have to pull the teeth of the wolves, but doing so is a dangerous task and must be done carefully. They will have to pull the teeth one at a time. To attempt to disarm all of the fighters simultaneously would lead to war.

One Tooth at a Time: Certain guns are inappropriate in citizens’ hands. Soldiers have PTSD and shouldn’t have guns. People with short-term psychological issues or who have received any of a myriad of medications should be entered into a system that denies them the right to own a gun. People should have to pay for outrageously expensive liability insurance if they are going to own a gun so that lower and middle-income Americans won’t be able to afford a gun.

While they are working at pulling the teeth of the wolves, they will have to work in parallel, diligently training the “between” people to instinctively submit.

They will teach them that when faced with a confrontation they should run or hide. They should pee or vomit. They should never use a weapon or try to defend themselves. They will teach them that standing up for themselves will just get them hurt worse. They will teach them that weapons are bad and evil things. They will teach them that only bad people want to own weapons. They will teach them that even pictures of weapons are not appropriate in our society. They will teach these things through the media to the adults. The will teach these things to our children at school.

When they have finished pulling the teeth of the fighters and training those between, they will be ready to make the changes that Obama has promised us.

We will no longer be represented by the government. We will be ruled by a governing class.

We, the Patriots of America, are the wolves who stand between the “Change” and America’s Freedom.

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About jurmond

'Jurmond' was the name of my first character in a homebrew D&D campaign. He was a gunslinger and tinker, creating and carrying strange weapons that belched fire and smoke. That was well over a decade ago but I still think of him whenever fiction and firearms collide, so it seems the perfect pen name for this project.